Hide table of contents

TL;DR:

We think EAGxBerkeley went really well - both from an attendee and organiser perspective. 

Here's some rough figures:

  • Date: December 2nd-4th, 2022
  • Location: Oakland Convention Centre, Oakland, CA
  • We estimate that ~550 people attended
    • 600 people registered for the conference 
    • 900 people applied for an acceptance rate of 67%
  • Feedback indicates:
    • 8.5/10 likelihood to recommend score
    • An average of 8.1 new connections per person
  •  ~ 50 speakers
  • 110 sessions of programming (talks, panels, speed friending, meetups, office hours, etc)
  • 31 Orgs represented at the Career fair
Our closing photo :) 

What is the purpose of this post? 

This post is a a mixture of advice and an overview of the conference for people interested in how EAGx events get planned, (future) event organisers, and a general community update on the success of the event. We do have a more detailed retrospective here.

Summary 

Here’s some facts about EAGxBerkeley to put it into context: We formed as a team in June 2022. We started planning the conference around then, finding the venue by the end of July. We decided on the date Dec 4th, 2022 (since that was the only weekend the conference venue had space in 2022). We then seriously started investing more time into organising by mid-August – starting with save the dates, putting together a potential speaker list and programme, and planning strategy (admissions, etc). We then moved to opening admissions (by mid-Oct), finalising speakers (done by mid-Oct), the event programme (done by end Oct / Nov 1st), finalising admissions (end-Nov), and then the additional steps of having a successful conference (career fair, hotel, pre/post events, attendee/speaker communication, volunteering, venue, catering, etc). 

Our mindset going into this was to do everything early. We took the standard EAGx timeline and hoped to get everything done earlier than the EAGx Handbook suggested, so that by the time the conference came around – we (the organisers) would have nothing to do. I can’t emphasise enough how important that was in saving our well-being and health in the final weeks leading up to the conference. 

Our full retrospective has details on every section of the conference - including what we did, thoughts on the process, areas for improvement, and top tips. We aren't putting that on here because then this post would be 30+ minutes of reading time, but feel free to read the full retrospective here

Things we could have done better: 

  • Admissions
    • Had a firm application close date and not accept any late entry asks after that date 
    • Had a firm register by date and then let in people off the waitlist  
  • Communication with Attendees
    • Communicate more about the lack of certain meals at the conference (ex. no breakfast on Saturday) 
    • Communicate more clearly the hotel situation and that hotel rooms were not paid for by us on Sunday night 
  • Event programme 
    • Not scheduled content over lunch and dinner hours 
    • Made sure that speaker's 1-1 sessions were blocked during their office hours (there were a few instances where speakers didn't come to their office hours) 
    • Raised the capacity for each scheduled talk to account for people registering and then not showing up 
    • Run more speed friending sessions and other fun activities 
    • Have a corner that is marked as "looking for someone to have a spontaneous 1-1 or conversation with" 
    • Similarly have a community guide / friendly helping person at the registration table able to help people plan their conference, figure out who to meet, etc 
  • Logistics 
    • We somehow missed a bunch of nametags for attendees. No idea what happened but they somehow didn't make it on the list of nametags to be made.
    • Had consistent snacks out or made it clear there was spare food in the main office / volunteer room.
    • Had less fake meat protein at meals and added more fresh fruit and veggies. 


Feedback Form Results:

Summary

  • Likelihood to Recommend:  8.5 / 10
  • Average new connections per attendee: 8.1
  • 34% attendees responded

Average’s to Survey Q’s

  • How likely is it that you would recommend EAGx to a friend or colleague with similar interests to your own? 8.5 / 10
  • How many one-on-one meetings did you have during EAGxBerkeley? 9.5 meetings
  • How many *new* connections did you make at the event? 8.11 connections
  • Before EAGxBerkeley, how many people in the EA community did you know well enough to ask for a favour? 15.4 or excluding outliers, 10
  • EAGx is a place where I feel welcome: 4.4 / 5
  • EAGx is a place where others are open to exploring ideas that are different than those they already believe: 4.1 / 5
  • EAGx is a place where individuals express their beliefs with humility: 3.8 / 5 
  • EAGx keeps me motivated to do good 4.4 / 5
  • What percentage of your interactions with other attendees did you find valuable? 
  • What did you think of the "Anything but EA" hour[1]? 7.3 / 10
  • On a scale of 1 to 10, how happy were you with the food? 7.2 / 10

Demographics

Some rough demographics

  • Mainly from the U.S. / living in the U.S. - makes sense with our target group (North America)
  • Average age = 25.6 yrs old
  • Race/ethnicity - Predominantly white 
  • Gender - Predominantly male (50-60%)


Our Top Advice

Key advice for the start of the planning process:

  • Get an all in one venue if possible
    • The idea behind this is reducing your involvement in coordination. If the people who manage your space, food, A/V are coordinating because it's already their job, then it doesn't have to be yours.
  • Talk to previous organisers
    • The feedback loops on decision making can be 3-5 months long which is a long time to know if you made the right call or not. Talking to previous organisers gives you a leg up as you can synthesise learning from the people who have already made those 3-5 month long decisions and cut a lot of noise out of your decision process.
  • Set team expectations, communication, and deadlines: We think the biggest failure mode comes from the team working dynamics and expectations. It’s often the case that something will happen (someone being upset, etc) - so it’s not a big deal, but having clear expectations and communication and a shared understanding can help minimise conflict. We suggest everyone write and share a ‘how to work with me’ document to understand everyone’s communication styles, everyone write down their expectations and needs (ex. how many hours can you commit, what do you want to work on, what do you absolutely not want to do, what are non-negotiables for you, etc), clarify team roles (in our opinion, someone should take charge.)
  • Start with a shared vision and goals: There’s a tough challenge where someone needs to own something but when someone owns it, it unfortunately often means it’s that person’s implementation – even when there’s a strong attempt to make it shared. For example, if you write an admissions strategy document, ultimately, as much as you ask for feedback and additions, it’s most likely going to be your admissions strategy that you invited the other team members to add to. Which means that the admissions process and strategy is yours – not the team's. That might be unavoidable (and at times could be preferable), so a key thing to do is set meeting times and work on strategy and goals together so that if someone is to take ownership, everyone can trust that the product will be aligned with the strategy you have all set.
  • EAGx's carry momentum; a lot of people are going to your location to meet people, get engaged in the community, do fun things in a new town. You should work with this put together social activities / hang outs for people to do exactly that. These events will naturally be much smaller which leads to a couple of advantages:
    1. The attendees are having more opportunities to interact with other EA's (what was your reason for hosting an EAGx in the first place?)
    2. Since these are smaller, these are perfect to delegate and especially to people who are curious in trying out event ops. As an organiser who is handing this task off, it's not very much overhead to give advice if they get stuck planning a party / event / etc.
      1. On top of that, these pre / post events being smaller means that it's low stakes for the person who wants to try out event ops, but also relatively low time / cost to set up and because of that relatively impactful for bringing new people together and the friendships that are made.
    3. To wrap this up: the above two reasons show that pre / post events are relatively easy and (in Mat's opinion) worthwhile to make happen. A couple of things that would be helpful for the EAGx organiser:
      1. Template to send to the organiser of each of these events with things like: Community Health policy, funding  constraints, etc. (A more or less standardised version of this wouldn't be the worst for CEA to pass along OR have one that's communally given from one to another.
      2. Have a single list of all these events that are happening for ease of sharing with your participants. (This also is handy for checking in on the leader of each event.)
  • There’s going to be a bunch of stuff that isn’t on the key list of things to do list that just comes up. When it comes up, decide who's doing it and what the process is. 
     

There's lots more detailed information and reflections in our full retrospective. Thanks to Ollie Base and the CEA EAGx team for all their help supporting us, the conference, and providing feedback on this post. 

  1. ^

    This was an hour where scheduling 1-1s on Swapcard were blocked and there was no educational content was scheduled. We had activities like meditation, games, art, tag, etc scheduled and on Swapcard. This happened on Saturday and Sunday. The point of this was to encourage attendees to take a break, hangout with other attendees, and have fun outside of talking about EA. 

     
Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Had less fake meat protein at meals and added more fresh fruit and veggies.

Was this the feedback from the survey? I (hazily) remember the meat substitutes running out faster than the fruit.

From the survey and mentions directly to me

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read